Eddings v Feros Care Limited - [2023] NSWCATCD 126

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Eddings v Feros Care Limited [2023] NSWCATCD 126
Hearing dates: 16 August 2023, 1 September 2023
Date of orders: 12 September 2023
Decision date: 12 September 2023
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Decision:
1.   The Tribunal declines to deal with this application as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings.
2.   Any application for costs, supported by submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence, is to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of these orders.
3.   Any submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence in response are to be filed and served with the following 14 days.
4.   Any submissions in reply (not exceeding two pages in length) and evidence in reply are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.
5.   Each party’s submissions should indicate whether they agree that costs should be determined on the papers, ie without the need for a further hearing.

Catchwords:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction of Tribunal - whether dispute involves Federal matter

Legislation Cited:
Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth)
Australian Consumer Law
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)
Constitution (Cth)
Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Retirement Villages Act 1999 (NSW)
User Rights Principles 2014 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
ASIC v Korbelt [2019] HCA 18
Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby [2018] NSWCA 254
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559
Australian Solar Mesh Sales Pty Ltd Anderson [2000] FCA 864; 101 FCR 1
Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15
Citta v Hobart [2022] HCA 16
Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 2
Dyldham Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners SP 85305 [2020] NSWCA 327
Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; 124 CLR 367
Fencott v Muller [1983] HCA 12; 152 CLR 570
Gleeson v Cavers [2021] NSWCATCD 158
LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd[1983] HCA 31; 151 CLR 575
Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimovski [2005] FCA 1528
Moorgate Tobacco Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [1980] HCA 32; 145 CLR 457
Murphy v Trustees of Catholic Aged Care Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 275
Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] HCA 28
Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 7; 148 CLR 457
Pongrass v Small [2021] NSWCATAP 314
Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC Q156; 254 FCR 1
Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union of Employees (Qld) [1997] HCA 40; 189 CLR 654
Smith v Smith [1986] HCA 36; 161 CLR 217
Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 213

Texts Cited:
None cited

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Applicant – Michael Earl Eddings
Respondent – Feros Care Limited
Representation:
Counsel:
Respondent – J Braithwaite
Solicitors:
Applicant – M…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eddings v Feros Care Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] NSWCATCD 126
Decision Date: 12 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Eddings v Feros Care Limited, the Federal Circuit Court was tasked with determining whether it had the requisite jurisdiction to hear the matter. The applicant, Eddings, sought to bring proceedings against Feros Care Limited, a provider of aged care services, concerning issues that appeared to have both state and federal elements. The core of the dispute involved the interpretation and application of various legislative provisions governing the provision of aged care services, with Eddings asserting that Feros Care Limited had breached certain obligations under both state and federal laws.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the dispute at hand involved a federal matter, thereby bringing it within the purview of the Federal Circuit Court's jurisdiction. The court had to discern whether the predominant character of the dispute was federal in nature, as this would determine its jurisdiction to hear the case. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the applicant's claims involved a matter that was of a kind that could only be dealt with by a federal court, such as those arising under the Constitution or federal laws.

The court found that the predominant character of the dispute did not involve a federal matter. The court concluded that the claims were more closely aligned with state law and did not fall within the federal jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution. Consequently, the court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to determine the proceedings and declined to do so. The court also provided detailed directions for the parties regarding the filing and serving of any subsequent applications for costs, ensuring that the process was conducted efficiently and within the specified timeframes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Tribunal declines to deal with this application as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings.

2. Any application for costs, supported by submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence, is to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of these orders.

3. Any submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence in response are to be filed and served with the following 14 days.

4. Any submissions in reply (not exceeding two pages in length) and evidence in reply are to be filed and served within the following 7 days.

5. Each party’s submissions should indicate whether they agree that costs should be determined on the papers, ie without the need for a further hearing.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Eddings v Feros Care Limited [2023] NSWCATCD 126
Hearing dates:	16 August 2023, 1 September 2023
Date of orders:	12 September 2023
Decision date:	12 September 2023
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	G Ellis SC, Senior Member
Decision:	1. The Tribunal declines to deal with this application as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings. 2. Any application for costs, supported by submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence, is to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of these orders. 3. Any submissions (not exceeding five pages in length) and evidence in response are to be filed and served with the following 14 days. 4. Any submissions in reply (not exceeding two pages in length) and evidence in reply are to be filed and served within the following 7 days. 5. Each party’s submissions should indicate whether they agree that costs should be determined on the papers, ie without the need for a further hearing.
Catchwords:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – Jurisdiction of Tribunal - whether dispute involves Federal matter
Legislation Cited:	Aged Care Act 1997 (Cth) Australian Consumer Law Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Constitution (Cth) Fair Trading Act 1987 (NSW) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) Retirement Villages Act 1999 (NSW) User Rights Principles 2014 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	ASIC v Korbelt [2019] HCA 18 Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby [2018] NSWCA 254 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; 204 CLR 559 Australian Solar Mesh Sales Pty Ltd Anderson [2000] FCA 864; 101 FCR 1 Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15 Citta v Hobart [2022] HCA 16 Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd [2020] NSWCATCD 2 Dyldham Developments Pty Ltd v The Owners SP 85305 [2020] NSWCA 327 Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; 124 CLR 367 Fencott v Muller [1983] HCA 12; 152 CLR 570 Gleeson v Cavers [2021] NSWCATCD 158 LNC Industries Ltd v BMW (Australia) Ltd[1983] HCA 31; 151 CLR 575 Macteldir Pty Ltd v Dimovski [2005] FCA 1528 Moorgate Tobacco Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [1980] HCA 32; 145 CLR 457 Murphy v Trustees of Catholic Aged Care Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 275 Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2016] HCA 28 Philip Morris Inc v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 7; 148 CLR 457 Pongrass v Small [2021] NSWCATAP 314 Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC Q156; 254 FCR 1 Re McJannet; Ex parte Australian Workers’ Union of Employees (Qld) [1997] HCA 40; 189 CLR 654 Smith v Smith [1986] HCA 36; 161 CLR 217 Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 213
Texts Cited:	None cited
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Applicant – Michael Earl Eddings Respondent – Feros Care Limited
Representation:	Counsel: Respondent – J Braithwaite Solicitors: Applicant – M…